Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 599 of 2010 Appellant :- Shesh Nath Singh Respondent :- Rajieev Shukla And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,P.S. Baghel,R.K. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Order dated 11.3.2010 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, special appeal is restored to its original number.
2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.
3. Heard Sri Ashish holding brief of Sri H.N. Pandey learned counsel for respondents.
4. This is an intra court appeal filed on behalf of Sri Shesh Nath Singh, respondent no. 3 challenging judgment and order dated 11.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 47676 of 2002.
5. It is stated that eight vacancies of stenographer were advertised. Ratan Pal Singh, respondent no. 3 and Shesh Nath Singh, appellant were at serial nos. 7 and 8, respectively, of select list. However, learned District Judge concerned arbitrarily made appointments and left two vacancies unfilled without any valid reason.
6. Ratan Pal Singh, respondent 3, in aforesaid writ petition, made application on 20.9.2001 whereupon District Judge concerned called for report and thereafter passed an order on 20.10.2001 that select list stood exhausted, in view of Court's Circular referred therein.
7. On 7.12.2001 Senior Administrative Officer submitted report stating that two selected candidates have not been appointed. The appointment letter was issued on 10.12.2001. Appointment of appellant and respondent no. 3 was challenged by one Rajiv Shukla who was in waiting list i.e. at serial no. 9 of select list.
8. Learned Single Judge has set aside appointment of appellant and respondent 3 on the ground that once District Judge concerned passed order, stating that select list has exhausted, it was not open to him to appoint appellant and respondent 3 subsequently on 10.12.2001.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that non- appointment of appellant and respondent 3 by District Judge concerned was wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, name of appellant and respondent 3 figured in select list and there was no provision under Rules prescribing period of select list, therefore, said select list could not have exhausted on 20.10.2001 since all appointments on the vacancies advertised were not made by District Judge concerned, illegally.
10. Despite repeated query by learned counsel appearing for District Judge-respondent 2 could not explain why appointment of appellant and respondent 3 were not made though their name stood at serial nos. 7 and 8 of select list and number of vacancies advertised were also 8.
11. Sri H.N. Pandey appearing for petitioner-respondent no. 1 has submitted that reason given for non-appointment was that once appointment not made within one year, select list stood exhausted and hence there was no occasion to make appointment of appellant and respondent 3 and learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order.
12. Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the opinion that non-appointment of appellant and respondent 3 by District Judge was arbitrary, inasmuch as, there was no justification for him for not appointing appellant and respondent 3 despite the fact that their names figured at serial nos. 7 and 8 and number of vacancies advertised/notified were also 8.
13. Moreover, from record it does not appear as to when, select list was signed by District Judge concerned. We find no reason for denying appointment to appellant-respondent. Learned Single Judge has erred in law in setting aside appointment of appellant and respondent 3 in this appeal. Order of learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot sustain and liable to be set aside in so far as it has quashed appointment of respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition.
13. Appeal is partly allowed. Judgment dated 11.3.2010 is modified to the extent that in the operative part of judgment of learned Single Judge where it has stated that “appointment of respondents 2 to 8 is quashed” shall stand modified and shall be read as “appointment of respondents 4 to 8 are quashed”.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Siddhant Sahu
Court No. - 34
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 13728 of 2018 IN Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 599 of 2010 Appellant :- Shesh Nath Singh Respondent :- Rajieev Shukla And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,P.S. Baghel,R.K. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing Recall Application.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown for delay in filing Recall Application is sufficient.
4. Condoned.
5. This application is accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Siddhant Sahu
Court No. - 34
Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 13729 of 2018 IN Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 599 of 2010 Appellant :- Shesh Nath Singh Respondent :- Rajieev Shukla And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,P.S. Baghel,R.K. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Order dated 11.3.2010 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, special appeal is restored to its original number.
2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Siddhant Sahu